Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution and I hope all of the Members of the House will support it. Earlier this year, as the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I had the opportunity to meet with Pascal Lamy, the European Union Commissioner for Trade, and to strongly make the case that this moratorium that Europe has imposed upon U.S. biotech products should be dropped and a reasonable system should be administered in its place; not what they are currently contemplating, which is a tracing and labeling requirement, which will make it in some instances even harder for us to sell our products into Europe.

I pointed out to them that people have been starving in Africa because of their policies. He took great umbrage at my suggestion that the Europeans were in fact promoting such a policy in Africa, but it turns out that that is exactly the case.

Through the organizations that they hire to distribute their own European food aid in African countries, they have spread the word that if they feed U.S. biotech grapes to their livestock, they will not be able to sell that livestock into Europe. It turns out that the Spanish, who agree with us on this position, by the way, grow thousands and thousands of acres of biotech crops in Spain, feed it to livestock, and sell it all over Europe anyway.

So the European policy on this issue is clearly nothing more than an artificial trade barrier. It is against the interests of their people, their consumers, to have the opportunity to have greater quality foods, foods that have greater vitamin retention, foods that are more environmentally sound, foods that can be grown in places like subSaharan African that are more drought-resistant. All of these things are important for us to promote, and that is what biotechnology does.

I commend the Bush administration for taking this case to the World Trade Organization, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 252. America's farmers and ranchers deserve to have the best technologies available at their disposal and I am hopeful that an end to the EUs illegal and longstanding moratorium on agricultural biotechnology may be near.

Agricultural biotechnology is one of the most promising developments in modern science. This science should be embraced and not banned, for it can help to provide answers to the problems of hunger around the world. It would be a shame if developing countries in Africa continue to deny food aid containing biotechnology because of the antibiotechnology attitudes in Europe. The politicizing of agricultural biotechnology should end so that we can return to providing food aid to the hungry as soon as possible.

I commend the Bush administration for taking this case to the World Trade Organization. The EU moratorium on biotech approvals has been spreading beyond Europe. In the fall of 2002, some famine stricken African nations refused U.S. food aid because it contained biotech corn. These countries were ill informed on the health and environmental impact of biotechnology and were also concerned that their own agriculture exports to Europe would be denied if they accepted the product. Zambia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe refused United States food aid made of the same wholesome food that Americans eat every day. Zimbabwe and Mozambique eventually accepted United States food aid after making costly arrangements to mill the corn so that African farmers could not grow it. Zambia continues to refuse United States corn.

As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300 million North Americans have been eating biotech corn and soybeans for years. No adverse health consequences have ever been reported. Many biotechnology products are being developed that will have unlimited benefits to vitamin deficient children. Research continues on a gene to add to rice which will contain more beta carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. Up to half of a million children per year go blind due to vitamin A deficiency. Another product being developed could also help reduce iron deficiencies, thus reducing anemia among millions of women and children worldwide.

The United States is not trying to force consumers to buy these biotechnology products. Consumer choice is the key and the moratorium is an example of the European government denying their consumes a choice. The moratorium is not based on science, but it is a blatant protectionist trade barrier. American farmers and ranchers are merely asking that their safe, sound and affordable product be allowed on the shelves in Europe.

America's farmers and ranchers produce the safest and most bountiful food supply in the world. Their goal is to share this bounty with those who need it most, while at the same time having access to markets around the world. While United States farmers have utilized many of the new technologies, some farmers are hesitant to use biotechnology because of the moratorium in Europe.

The European Union's (EU) illegal and unscientific moratorium should be lifted and a WTO case against the EU will send a message to the rest of the world that illegitimate, non-science based trade barriers will not be tolerated.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 252.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his leadership

on this issue. He has been fighting this for a long time, and I appreciate his efforts to bring forth this legislation.

I am pleased to support it, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, because it is an important first step in the fight against Internet gambling. It hits illegal gambling institutions where it hurts the most: their pockets. By shutting off the financial lifeblood of this illegal industry, this bill will help to starve out unlawful Internet gambling sites and in the process close off opportunities for money launderers, terrorists, and organized crime.

Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. The Internet gambling industry revenues grew from $445 million in 1997 to an estimated $4.2 billion this year. Furthermore, industry analysts estimate that Internet gambling could soon easily become a $10 billion a year industry.

The problems with Internet gambling are many. The instant access to online gambling is particularly disturbing. This illegal activity is available to adults and children alike with the simple click of a mouse.

In addition, the social problems associated with traditional forms of gambling have increased with the proliferation of Internet gambling. Online gambling results in more addictions, more bankruptcies, more divorces, more crime, the cost of which must ultimately be borne by society.

I do believe that more needs to be done in the fight against Internet gambling, including creating stiffer criminal penalties for violators and updating the Federal Wire Act to make it clear that it covers new technologies such as the Internet.

However, H.R. 2143 is an important first step in this fight and I am pleased to support this bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who have helped to lead this effort. This is a great opportunity for us today and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama, for his leadership on this legislation, which is a big step forward in the fight against Internet gambling. This amendment, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) described, is indeed a poison pill. The reason is, it does not have any effect on the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of gambling, the provision that they want to pull out. That provision simply protects the rights of States to regulate gambling.

Historically, that is what we have always done in this country. Gambling has always been the province of the States. They regulate gambling, and this amendment would change that. This amendment would take away from the States the right to do that.

We are simply attempting to maintain the status quo with respect to underlying Federal and State substantive law on gambling. We are not tilting the playing field one way or another unfairly, we are simply trying to address the problem of unlawful gambling, as the title of the bill suggests. I would love to do more on these other issues, but this is not the bill, this is not the place to do it.

The term ``lawful'' is included in this provision of the bill to indicate that no transaction will be exempted from the effect of the bill unless that transaction complies with all other State and Federal laws. The amendment already adopted offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) makes that even clearer, so the complaints of the gentleman from Utah, whose State I have great admiration for in terms of their efforts to combat gambling, need have no fear of this legislation. This does not open up Utah to any new forms of gambling. It will tighten it down.

There are plenty of people in Utah today who pull up a chair in front of their computer in their living room and go on and place a bet, using a credit card or wire transfer or some other form of financial transfer, that this legislation will stop. We should not allow a poison pill to prevent this legislation from moving forward to accomplish that.

In addition, States have traditionally had the power to decide whether to allow gambling within their borders. We should not put into question the authority of those States to decide these matters for themselves. Utah, Virginia, or any other State in the country, they ought to be able to make that decision, and we ought not interfere with it. Striking this provision of the bill would eliminate a provision that reinforces the rights of the States to decide whether or not to prohibit gambling, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 760, the ban on the procedure known as partial birth abortion. I was appalled when I learned of the partial birth abortion procedure and have been working diligently to abolish it ever since. This heinous procedure involves partially delivering fully formed babies, and then killing them. It is one of the most horrible forms of abortion practiced. The difference between abortion and murder is literally a few inches. I believe that there is no justification for this brutal and heartless procedure, and only the most calloused among us can hear the description of this procedure and not react with disgust.

We must act now to ban this appalling procedure and protect the innocent unborn from violent deaths. A vote in favor of H.R. 760 will stop the killing of innocent children and will send a message to the world that our Nation views life as a sacred and precious gift.

The overwhelming majority of the American people want to ban partial- birth abortions and no matter what your position is on abortion, this grisly procedure is indefensible in a civilized society. Thus, this vote on H.R. 760 gives all of us an opportunity to join together in protecting innocent children from this horrific and gruesome procedure.

H.R. 760 is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I urge each of my colleagues to support this legislation and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to amend the Constitution to give the Congress the authority to prevent the physical desecration of the American flag, and I would note the comments of the gentleman from New York, citing some dictators who have prohibited destroying flags, and would point out that many others of a very different mind-set have strongly supported this, including President Abraham Lincoln. Many justices of the Supreme Court, as disparate in their views as Earl Warren and William Rehnquist and Hugo Black have found that the laws of the many States prohibiting the desecration of the flag to be constitutional, and it is only because of a narrow five- four majority at one moment in time in our Court's history, finding these laws to be unconstitutional and overturning the work of 48 States and the District of Columbia, that it is necessary for the Congress to address this.

I would argue to the gentleman from Texas, for whom I have respect, that we are turning away from the rule of law when we do not recognize that with freedom comes responsibility, and we have always recognized in the first amendment that there are a number of instances in which free speech is limited. A person cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. They cannot engage in slander or libel. They cannot engage in fighting words. There are a number of such restrictions, and certainly, the prohibition on the physical act of destroying a flag should be included

amongst them because it is the equivalent of fighting words to burn a flag in front of a group of veterans who put their lives on the line for their country and fought for the freedom which that flag represents.

This is a very basic, very straightforward amendment supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California, the concerns that I have as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has. He is the chairman of the other committee of concurrent jurisdiction with regard to this issue.

We want to raise our strong concerns to the way this amendment has proceeded to the floor, as well as the way that the amendment is drafted. We have some grave concerns about the necessity of it and about the scope of it. It may go well beyond what both the Committee on Armed Services and the Forest Service think is appropriate and necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley/Gallegly amendment to H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004. This amendment creates a pilot program to improve the use of Air Force and Air National Guard Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting systems to fight wildfires. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I support strengthening our ability to fight wildfires but this amendment is ill- considered. The U.S. Forest Service tells me that this authority is not necessary and they oppose it as does the Office of Management and Budget. This will disrupt decades of contractual services provided by competent private sector participants.

This amendment is identical to bills that were referred primarily to the House Agriculture Committee. As Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction on this issue, I intend to address this issue in conference as a conferee. However, I would note, notwithstanding the comments of the gentleman from Colorado, that he has never discussed this issue

with me or members of the committee staff or asked that any action be taken by the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, that was a tragedy about the shooting of the 18-year- old young man, Mr. Hernandez, who was shepherding his family's goats. But let me tell you a little bit more about the story. He had a .22 rifle. He fired twice at the Marines and was aiming to fire a third time, and only then was fire returned and, regrettably, he was killed with a single shot.

We need to pass this amendment today. We need to send a message to the illegal drug traffickers, hey, we are going to have the authority to put troops on the border. We need to send a message to illegal aliens coming into this country that we are going to put troops on the its border and stop it. And to those terrorists who are in Mexico, such as that reported by the Washington Times that al Qaeda is there, we need to send them a message: We are going to stop you at the border; you are not getting in.

Let us put troops on the border and vote yes for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 239, I call up the bill (H.R. 1904) to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. This bipartisan legislation has undergone remarkable scrutiny and in fact is a rather modest response compared to the magnitude of the forest health crisis confronting this Nation. Over 190 million acres of public lands are at risk to damage from insects, disease and catastrophic wildfire. By that we mean if you have forests in your district or your constituents benefit from a forest either by receiving clean water from a forested watershed or they go hiking in a national forest on weekends, you need to support this bipartisan bill.

By catastrophic wildfire, we do not mean natural wildfires that burn across the ground and take out the brush. We mean the kind of fire that consumes the entire forest, shoots flames into the air hundreds of feet and takes out entire, huge trees.

We are proposing to treat less than one in six of the acres on Federal lands using the streamlined procedures authorized in the underlying bill. This is not a massive logging bill. This is perhaps an under action to the magnitude of the problem we have on our public lands.

Why are we doing this? Because these forest health problems are national in scope and because what is at stake here is far more than the loss of wood fiber.

Here is a map showing what is known as ``condition classes'' of forest and rangeland across the United States. As Members can see, while a good portion of the problem is in the western United States, there is also a lot of land in the eastern United States that is at risk to fire, insects and disease. Seventy-five percent of the National Forest land in Alabama is in condition class 2 or 3, the yellow and red we see here. Almost 1 million acres in Arkansas is in condition class 2 or 3; 730,000 acres in Illinois; half a million acres in Indiana; 2.1 million in Michigan; 4.2 million acres, all of this bright red, in Minnesota; 2.3 million in Missouri; nearly half a million in New Hampshire; almost a million in North Carolina; and nearly three- quarters of a million acres in Pennsylvania.

In those States alone, that roughly adds up to almost 12.5 million acres of land in the eastern United States. There are several other States in the East that have problems at least that severe. This bill will allow the Forest Service to reach out and treat only a fraction of this acreage using expedited procedures. I would hope my colleagues in the East would want to support this bill in order to protect their forests.

In addition, I support H.R. 1904 because it takes a comprehensive approach to water quality. If we do not get ahead of these catastrophic fires, this is what we will be left with on millions of acres of precious watersheds. If this hillside had been thinned and a normal healthy forest restored, a creeping fire through here would have done little damage. Instead, a catastrophic fire has created a dead hillside that cannot absorb water.

Here the intense heat of a catastrophic fire effectively turns the topsoil to glass and prevents percolation into the water table. A heavy rain event on a fire site like this will create massive flooding and transport large amounts of ash and soil into nearby streams, contaminating water for wildlife and downstream drinking water supplies.

Some suggest we should not do any hazardous fuels reduction projects outside the wildland-urban interface, that we leave watersheds and recreational lands to whatever situation fate has in store for them. This is the fate that the situation has in store for them; and if this is allowed to occur in the interior of our forests and then approaches the urban interface, nothing that is done will stop this from taking all of that land as well if it is allowed to get to this magnitude as it approaches that barrier. If this stand had been actively managed, a fire here would have done far less damage. That would make it a better place for everyone, better wildlife habitat, better recreation area, better watershed, better air quality and certainly a heck of a lot prettier. Sitting back and hoping for the best is not the way to get healthy forests.

Some have suggested that we spend almost all of our efforts and funds within a few hundred yards of inhabited areas. This is an illusion, and it is irresponsible. We cannot protect communities by doing all of the work near their boundaries. Fires over the last several years have raced miles and leaped as much as 2 miles away from the main fire, crossing huge firebreaks like interstate highways to burn hundreds of homes.

Sitting back, hoping for the best and letting existing bureaucratic processes continue to founder is not fiscally responsible. Last year, the Federal Government spent $1.6 billion fighting catastrophic fires. States spent hundreds of millions as well. We need to recognize that these huge expenditures are a land management problem. While we need to continue fighting fires, we need to be smarter and make investments in active land management in order to ultimately reduce these exorbitant firefighting costs.

We have listened to people from all over the country in putting this bill together. In addition to the remedial hazardous fuels reduction projects, the legislation now contains authorization to assess and attack the problem of major insect infestation that are threatening public and private forestland all over the country. We have added provisions to create cooperative watershed protection programs on private forestlands and a healthy

forest reserve program to ensure continued healthy management of private forestland.

As we came to the floor, we made adjustments in the bill to clarify the modest goals of hazardous fuels reduction. The bill now clarifies that there will be public notice and comment on all projects and, when projects are judicially appealed, the government will carry the burden of proof on the merits of the project. We will now require that all insect assessment projects receive outside peer review. We have clarified that the contentious debates over endangered species, roadless areas and old-growth policy are not a part of this modest bill.

Lastly, I want to point out that there is a truly impressive coalition of groups supporting this legislation. Labor unions, local conservation districts, county governments, professional land managers, volunteer firefighters and State officials have all come out in strong support of the underlying legislation. We have over 130 cosponsors of this bill, and it has been reviewed and overwhelmingly approved by three committees of the House.

As we speak, this year's fire season is getting under way. The experts at the National Interagency Fire Center expect much of the interior West, south/central Alaska, portions of California, western Great Lakes States and northern Maine to experience an above-normal fire season. Please join me and your colleagues from across the country in support of beginning to take steps to protect our natural resources for the benefit of our children and grandchildren who will wonder if we fail to act why we did not take the obvious steps we needed to take to conserve our forests. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). This bill, far from closing the courthouse door, opens it wide, makes it effective for those who seek redress in the courts to address the issue at hand. Right now, under current procedures, individuals who want no activity to take place in our forests at all will use our judicial system to delay action on our forests for 2, 3 years. If we have a forest that is prime for a forest fire because of the fuel density that is built up in it or because disease or insects have destroyed it, we need to take action promptly. That is what this does.

In no other area of the law that I know of is one allowed on appeal in the judicial process to raise issues that they did not raise at the outset, and that is also done commonly by extreme environmental groups who wait until the end. This cures that. It opens it up. The public is able to participate in the process throughout public comment, in the administrative process and in the appeals process, but it gets it done in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

(Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for purposes of control.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire who has the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is quite right. Our forests were mismanaged a century ago. And we have had a great challenge in the last century because people live in and around these forests and we must fight forest fires. But the fact of the matter is if you fight forests fires, you are going to have this density building up. Many of our forests have several times the amount of firewood growing in them than is normal, than is natural. So the fires that occur are not natural forest fires.

I have heard the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) say that we are cutting the heart out of our environmental laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is our environmental laws will be retained. This measure is quite modest. It only applies to a little more than 10 percent of the land that is subject to these catastrophic wild fires because of this density of the forests that has built up.

The fact of the matter is, if we do not pass this legislation, the abuse of those environmental laws by extremists will cause us to burn the heart out of our Nation's forests. This is a responsible response to that.

This is something that will allow the people who know how to manage our forests to apply scientific analysis of the forests. And with public comment, with local government input, with an appeals process both administratively and through the courts, we will get a prompt and expeditious response to the problem that we are seeing every year now in our national forests. It will give us the opportunity to begin the process of making those forests safer and healthier for the animals that live in them, for the air that we all breathe, for the streams that we all recreate in and are so important to our communities; and it will give us the opportunity to have a better environmental and economic future for rural America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have discussed with Mr. Matheson from Utah the issue of local preference contracting for hazardous fuels reduction projects. I agree with Mr. Matheson that this issue needs to be addressed and I pledge to work with the gentleman from Utah as H.R. 1904 goes to conference.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I submit the following exchange of letters with the respective Committees of jurisdiction with regard to H.R. 1904, the Health Forests Restoration Act of 2003 for printing in the Congressional Record:

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.

Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to recognize your

Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1904, the Healthy

Forests Restoration Act.

I appreciate your recognition of the need to move this

legislation expeditiously. The U.S. Forest Service is

predicting another very dangerous fire season and Congress

needs to get the tools contained in H.R. 1904 implemented for

the Forest Service post haste. I recognize that your decision

not to request a sequential referral of this bill does not

waive, reduce or otherwise affect any jurisdictional interest

the Energy and Commerce Committee may have in the bill.

I will support the appointment of conferees from your

Committee on those sections of the bill the parliamentarians

determine are in the Energy and Commerce Committee's

jurisdiction if a conference is convened.

Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to manage that time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last year this Nation lost 6.9 million acres to catastrophic forest fires. That is an area larger than the entire State of Vermont. The Federal Government spent $1.6 billion in a losing effort to save that forestland. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act would expedite hazardous fuels reduction projects on a fraction of the 190 million at-risk acres in our national forests.

The Miller substitute seeks to throw us back into the morass of inaction and delay that is destroying our natural resource base. According to the Chief of the Forest Service, last year the Forest Service spent over $250 million on land management projects. Forty percent of that amount, over $100 million, was wasted on process delays. If we continue to approach catastrophic fire losses like this, we will have lots of lawyers and still lose the forests.

The Miller substitute would reinstate the opportunities for procedural delay and even adds new unnecessary steps. This will drag the system even further into the mire that is exposing forest after forest to catastrophic fire threats.

The substitute forces 85 percent of funding for hazardous fuels reduction to be spent within one-half mile of an at-risk community. This arbitrary standard provides little meaningful protection to towns caught in the path of raging fires, the pictures some of which we have seen already in the debate, that have been observed to leap up to 2 miles past the main fire. By throwing almost all the projects into a narrow useless belt around towns, the substitute ignores the peril to watersheds, wildlife, particularly endangered species, and the forest itself.

The basic approach of the Miller substitute seems to be: If you can't beat it, wreck it. The most puzzling aspect of the substitute is that it totally ignores most of the bill. It does a thorough job of heaping needless process delays on the hazardous fuels reduction projects, but it ignores the threat of insect infestation on public and private lands. In my part of the country, it is the disease and insect infestations that are the greatest threat in the east and the south. The substitute refuses to accept the watersheds protection and healthy forest reserve programs created by H.R. 1904.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a balanced approach to responsible conservation of our public and private forest resources. It addresses forest health problems and promotes good stewardship across the Nation. The Miller substitute is a scheme to undermine fire protection efforts and effectively pretends there are no other forestry problems worth addressing. The labor unions, conservation associations, State and local governments, and professional foresters who support H.R. 1904 disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the Miller substitute and the passage of this outstanding bill, a first step to ending the carnage of our Nation's forestlands.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining and who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

(Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow), the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), people from all parts of the country of both parties came together and negotiated carefully a balanced bill that we have before you.

I have heard people talk about big trees and show some pictures of big trees. Let me show you a picture of some big trees, burning up in flames, rising hundreds of feet. That is what happens to big trees if you do not address the problem.

There are two big reasons why people should oppose the Miller substitute. There are a lot of other reasons as well, but the two really big ones are, number one, it ignores the number one problem, and that is the process. That is what is slowing us down. That is what is taking 2 or 3 years of tying our courts into knots, using up all kinds of judicial time, arriving at nowhere.

This simply streamlines the process. It does not exclude public comment, it does not exclude public administration in the administrative process, it does not exclude the right to appeal. It simply makes it more practical and effective.

The second problem is this: it ignores the East and the South. This is a southern pine beetle. What does it do? It devastates the Southeastern part of the United States. Millions of acres of public and private forest lands untreated. This is the woolly adelgid, the Southeast and the Northeast, absolutely destroyed by it.

The result? Here is a forest that has been worked over by the southern pine beetle. No, this is not fall foliage; those are pine trees. That is what you get all across the East. The gentleman ignores that whole aspect of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, who has done an outstanding job leading this legislation to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a catastrophic wildfire. It is not a natural fire that burns along the ground and takes out the brush. It consumes millions of acres of big, beautiful trees, 6.9 million acres last year, more than the size of the entire State of Vermont.

This is the risk in every part of the country. This is a serious problem in the West, but it is also a serious problem in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, all across the south and Missouri. Every part of this country is impacted, and that is why this is bipartisan legislation crafted by Members of the House of Representatives from all across the country.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) contributed to the effort to make this good, bipartisan legislation.

This is what happens with a catastrophic wildfire. It does not leave a healthy forest. It leaves this kind of devastation subject to erosion. And then it rains. This is what happens when it rains. It washes everything into the rivers and streams. It turns the ground to glass. This water will not go into the ground. The ground will not percolate, these forest fires are so intense.

This is one of the main reservoirs for the city of Denver, Colorado, and this is what was washed into it after a forest fire, damaging the water supply of the community.

This is what happens in the East and Southeast, bugs: pine beetle outbreaks in Georgia and Alabama and Tennessee and the woolly adelgid in Virginia. This picture shows what happens in the eastern part of the United States without this legislation.

What does the motion to recommit do? It takes out a key provision in the bill which is the source of this problem, which is the process. The process takes 2, 3 years. The forest go up in flames from wildfires before we ever get to treat the forests for disease and insects and for buildup of fuel density that causes this kind of fire.

Do not let him take out the key provision of the bill which expedites the process. It still allows for public comment, and it still provides for public input in the administrative proceedings. It still allows for judicial review, but it does it in a fair and timely fashion that recognizes that if we do not make a change in the bureaucratic morass that we are in today, we are going to see this year after year after year until we do not have any forests.

Let us protect our endangered species and our watersheds. Let us protect our citizens from air pollution and our firefighters from dying in these hazardous fires.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 1904.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill (H.R. 1904), the Clerk be authorized to correct the table of contents, section numbers, punctuation, citations, and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may

be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, over the next hour we will be paying tribute to our colleague and friend, Representative Larry Combest, who announced in November of 2002 that he was retiring from Congress at the end of this month.

It is a real privilege and honor for me to participate in this special order, because Larry has been a friend and a mentor to me for more than 10 years now since I first became a Member of the House and joined the House Committee on Agriculture. He served as our chairman for 4 years. He has very graciously traveled to my district to meet with my farmers and community leaders and talk about matters of concern to them and has truly been a great help to many of us here in the Congress.

Larry Combest has also faithfully served his own constituents, his home State of Texas and his country, for the past 18 years.

His greatest legislative accomplishment lies in his shepherding through of the landmark 2002 Farm Bill, which President Bush signed into law last year. He and other members of the committee began work on the bill 3 years ago when the agriculture community was in the throes of a severe economic depression. Under Larry's leadership, the farm bill was eventually signed into law, reflecting his goal of providing a dependable safety net that farmers could rely on when tough economic times arise, as they inevitably will.

President Dwight Eisenhower once remarked, ``Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you are 1,000 miles from the cornfield.''

Larry understood the fundamental concept that legislators in Washington cannot craft effective farm policy if they are not in touch with the day-to-day struggles of rural America. With this in mind, the Committee on Agriculture, under Larry's leadership, held 10 field hearings across the country before actually sitting down to craft the farm bill. They drew high attendance and over 200 witnesses.

For his tireless work on behalf of the farm community, he received countless accolades, among them the Gerald W. Thomas Outstanding Agriculturalist Award for Public Service, the Lubbock Area Foundation Hero of the Year Award, and the Legislator of the Year from the National Association of Farm Service Agency Employees.

While Larry was a consistent voice for agriculture, his work in Congress did not end there. He is a senior Member of the Committee on Small Business, where he has earned a reputation as a fiscally responsible Member of Congress who serves as a reliable steward of taxpayer money.

As evidence of this commitment, his first day in Congress he cosponsored the balanced budget amendment. He has also been a leader on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has lent previous experience in the military affairs and in intelligence matters to the Congress, and that has also been widely recognized and acknowledged.

In recognition of his efforts, he has been the recipient of many recent awards, including the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce's Distinguished Service Award, Leader of the Year in Service to Agriculture by Progressive Farmer Magazine, the Independent Bankers Association of Texas 2002 Trailblazer Award, and the Heritage of Odessa Foundation's 2002 Award for Excellence in Community Service in Government.

Additionally, each year the National Federation of Independent Businesses recognizes Larry as a guardian of small business, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has consistently honored him with their Prestigious Spirit of Enterprise Award.

In addition to his abundant legislative accomplishments, Larry remained attentive to the needs of his constituents, never forgetting where he came from and who sent him here. His office has an excellent reputation for case work which flowed from his enthusiastic spirit of service. Voters recognized this about Larry, expressing their confidence in his representation by ever-increasing electoral margins.

I am honored to follow him as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and am committed to ensuring that the farm bill that he guided through Congress is implemented according to its original intent. He has been a valued colleague.

After nearly 2 decades of distinguished public service, it is an understatement to say that Larry Combest can return home with his head held high. But those who know him doubt that will happen; for, in spite of all that he has accomplished, Larry has maintained his humility, a character trait which is increasingly rare in this city.

I know he is anxious to return to west Texas, to his friends and family; and we wish him and his wife, Sharon, all of the best. His consistent voice on behalf of rural America will be terribly missed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture who has served long in this body and served the entire time the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) served.

I thank the gentleman.

It is my pleasure to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

I thank the gentleman.

It is my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his excellent statement.

At this time I am pleased to recognize the chairman of the department operations, oversight, nutrition, forestry, dairy, et cetera, et cetera, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research and a whole host of other responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

At this time it is my pleasure to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I thank all of those who participated in this today, and I wonder if I might prevail upon the man of the hour to say a few words to us himself.

A lot has been mentioned about the possibility that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) might spend some time fishing in the next few months. That will be a well-deserved recreation for he and his wife, Sharon. But I find it especially refreshing, given that he represents a district that includes, as I understand it, the town of no trees, and I do not think he has much by the way of national forestland. So I am glad he will get the opportunity to enjoy it all across the country.

So at this time I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing those wonderful remarks with us, and I thank him also for sharing nearly 2 decades of his life with the American people and with all of us here in the Congress. We thank Sharon for sharing you with us because it has been a blessing for all of us. So we wish you the best.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that we have a large contingent of staff members of the House Committee on Agriculture and other friends and supporters of Larry in the gallery. I mentioned earlier that the Record will remain open for an additional 5 days for Members to submit statements for the Record, and a number already have.

I would also note that the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), have submitted statements for the Record, and I know others have been submitted and will be in the coming days because, Larry, many of us want to let you know how highly we regard you and we wish you happy trails and abundant streams. May God abundantly bless you and Sharon in all of your future travels.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. GOODLATTE: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 1904. A bill

to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous

fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and

Bureau of Land Management lands aimed at protecting

communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands from

catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect

watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland

health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the

landscape, and for other purposes; referred to the Committee

on Judiciary for a period ending not later than May 16, 2003,

for consideration for such provisions of the bill as fall

within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause

1(k), rule X (Rept. 108-96, Pt 1).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today, as the Commonwealth of Virginia celebrates its Arbor Day, to introduce legislation to recognize the people's selection of the oak tree as America's national tree. Selected by the American people during a 4- month-long open voting process sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation, the oak tree earned the title of America' s Chosen National Tree. To recognize this distinction, I am proud to introduce legislation today that officially establishes the oak tree as America's national tree.

As a member of Congress representing a heavily forested district in Virginia, I know first-hand how trees add to our quality of life. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I appreciate how trees and forests enhance the environment, add recreational opportunities and provide for the livelihoods of millions of individuals in the forest industry. Whether enjoying a product generated from a forest, or the simple satisfaction of lying under a shaded giant, trees contribute to all Americans.

The strong and stately oak tree is of particular importance in America's history and culture. Not only is this majestic tree an aesthetic beauty that characterizes the landscape of much of our great Nation, it also provides us with wood products in our homes, our offices and our places of gathering. Common to all 50 states, the oak has played a huge role in America's history as a valuable resource. It helped our founding fathers establish a new Nation, supplying building materials for the ever-expanding 13 original colonies. It served as a familiar sight to pioneers as they forged across the new republic to the west coast. And to this day it has remained an enduring, valuable, and highly prized raw material from which beautifully crafted furniture, sturdy door and window framing, ornate flooring and paneling, and the like, are made. This enduring and mighty tree, which has long been a part of our national heritage and strength, fully merits the distinction of America's National tree.

The oak tree has also played a key role in many specific historic moments in our Nation's history. Abraham Lincoln found his way across a river near Homer, IL, using the Salt River Ford Oak as a marker. The Richards White Oak in Cecil County, MD once served as a landmark on a 1681 map used by William Penn. Andrew Jackson took shelter under Louisiana's Sunnybrook Oaks on his way to the Battle of New Orleans. And ``old ironsides,'' the USS Constitution, earned its nickname from the strength of its live oak hull, famous for easily repelling British cannonballs.

Chosen by the people in a broad-based election, the oak tree represents the true characteristics of this great Nation: strength, beauty and endurance. Please join me in making official what we have known for many years--that the oak tree is America's national tree.

Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Stenholm and I are introducing a resolution recognizing the important service of the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department of Agriculture on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service was established to develop and expand markets for United States agricultural commodities and products.

Our farmers and ranchers are the most productive in the world and produce much more than we in the United States can consume. Therefore a vibrant export market is very important to the success of United States agriculture. FAS has contributed to that success and as of 2002, United States agricultural exports exceed imports by more than $12 billion. Our exports have grown significantly over the history of FAS and now exceed $50 billion per year.

FAS fosters the public and private partnership that is needed to promote United States agricultural exports and to develop and expand markets around the world.

At this important time when free trade negotiations are ongoing, both in the World Trade Organization and through bilateral negotiations, the FAS is essential to represent United States agriculture and ensure that the challenges facing our agriculture producers are thoroughly addressed.

Another responsibility of the FAS is to provide food aid to needy people in developing countries and to help those countries to eventually become trading partners of the Untied States and buy our agricultural products.

The FAS and its employees provide a significant service to the farmers and ranchers here at home so that they can compete in worldwide markets. I congratulate them on their achievements and look forward to working closely with the FAS as the Committee continues its work to expand markets for United States agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the State of Virginia recently enacted a law to delay our utilities from joining a regional transmission organization until July 2004. There is great concern in my State that the benefit that our consumers enjoy, low-price electricity, will not stay in our State if our utilities join an RTO. We have had discussions about the possibility of placing an amendment here in the bill which would resolve this problem. Unfortunately, we have not been able to accomplish that. At this time, I would ask the chairman if he can assist me.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

There is concern among those in my State that the savings clause language in the Native Load provision of the bill, section 16023, will not give our consumers the protection of that provision as we transition to an RTO.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

I would like to further elaborate on a colloquy with the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to clarify the intent of the Commerce Committee with regards to addressing the concerns of the Virginia delegation about a unique situation in our state regarding native-load protection.

Under FERC's proposed standard market design rulemaking, state authority to protect so-called native-load customers--buyers of electricity who have been guaranteed reliable supplies of power at fixed prices--could be supplanted. This proposal deeply concerned Virginia's State Corporation Commission (SCC), Virginia's regulatory agency which has oversight over the state's utility industry. The SCC was not assured that under this proposal my state would be subject to spiraling costs. As you may know, my constituents pay some of the lowest electric rates in the nation.

Because of the SCC's concerns, the Virginia General Assembly recently passed legislation to delay full implementation of FERC's proposed language to allow the state to examine the full consequences of restructuring. Virginia is the only state to have passed such legislation, putting it in a unique position with regard to the protection of native loads. Many Virginians could end up paying more for electricity if one of my utilities joins an RTO because the transfer of control of transmission lines may threaten the state's ability to assure reliable service at the stable and reasonable rates many customers are currently enjoying. If the power to protect transmission lines is lost, consumers will no longer be protected from escalating rates. The SCC and the General Assembly have acted to protect native-loads, but if their actions are ignored by FERC, Virginia's electricity prices could sour, and service could become unreliable.

When the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee approved the Energy Bill several weeks ago, Congressman Norwood included language to protect state-regulated markets that favor native-load customers. However, Congressman Barton included a savings clause that would exempt certain RTOs from the underlying Norwood provision. Given the unique situation that my state is in, if utilities in Virginia were to join one of these exempted RTOs, I am concerned about the protection of their native- loads.

In light of the fact that language protecting native-load preferences in my state has not been included in the Energy Bill, I would like to have the assurances of both the Chairman of the Full Committee and the Subcommittee that they will work with me as this bill moves to conference and in conference to address the unique situation and concern of the Commonwealth of Virginia in protecting native-loads. It is my understanding that Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Barton intend to work with me to include language in the bill that will protect native- load preferences in my state that will help ensure that Virginia gets the full benefit of the native-load preferences in the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. This important legislation cracks down on child predators and provides the resources to help ensure that abducted children are safely returned home.

Specifically, H.R. 1104 increases the minimum and maximum penalties for the sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children. It also directs the Sentencing Commission to increase the base offense level for kidnapping.

Furthermore, it removes the statute of limitations for child abductions and for many felony sex offenses. This provision will be particularly helpful in situations where DNA evidence conclusively proves the identity of a perpetrator years after the crime was committed.

In addition to increasing criminal penalties for child predators, H.R. 1104 also establishes and funds an AMBER alert coordination program. To accomplish this, the bill first establishes an AMBER alert coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States with developing, enhancing, and coordinating their AMBER alert plans. Second, the bill authorizes $5 million to be distributed to the Department of Justice to award grants to encourage the development of AMBER alert activities. The establishment of this AMBER alert coordination program is a crucial step toward bringing missing and abducted children home safely.

As a member of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I have long been concerned about the safety of children, the most vulnerable members of our society. The caucus has worked to build awareness about missing children, and to create a cohesive voice in Congress so that we might introduce and pass legislation that will strengthen law enforcement and community mobilization efforts to combat child abduction. H.R. 1104 achieves both of these goals and I encourage each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.